Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (72252)	1/27/1999 1:04:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, RE:"I remember when the 386 33MHz came out. It ran Windows much faster than any other processor. It was worth the premium. But that was a long time ago... --- Heck, I remember when the Intel 4004 came out, but thats another story. Maybe the first processor Engel helped FAB. <G> If you remember the 386-33 then surely you remember the AMD 386-40. 40>33 and If I can remember, the 386-40 helped AMD garner 50% of the market before Intel moved on to the 486. If AMD had the K6 running at 533 right now they would be doing a real number on Intel. RE:"Fact is, nobody can tell the difference between a 500 Mhz and a 400 Mhz processor." Sure they can...500 is bigger and faster than 400. Most people don't have two computers to compare and find out it really isn't that much faster.

To: Scumbria who wrote (72252)	1/27/1999 1:10:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<Fact is, nobody can tell the difference between a 500 Mhz and a 400 Mhz processor> Meanwhile, Scumbria, you are praising AMD for their K7 design, which employs an "innovative" long pipeline to increase clock speeds. Would you be able to tell the difference between a K7 and a Pentium III, or a Xeon, or a Celeron for that matter? I know you have to play the resident skeptic in these threads, but going as far as saying that PIII = PII = K6 = N64 (heh) is a little too much for me. Tenchusatsu

To: Scumbria who wrote (72252)	1/27/1999 1:40:00 PM
From: Gary Ng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, Re: Fact is, nobody can tell the difference between a 500 Mhz and a 400 Mhz processor (besides the price.) The same can be said for 233/266 vs 350(or pick any other). But people today just won't buy a 233 or lower unless for very specific reason. Gary

To: Scumbria who wrote (72252)	1/27/1999 2:25:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Slick - Re: " Fact is, nobody can tell the difference between a 500 Mhz and a 400 Mhz processor (besides the price.)" Now there you go again, Slippery ! You claimed MHz was real important for the AMD K7 . But now that Intel has 500 MHz Pentium IIIs out, MHz is not important. I suppose a SLippery Slick like you thinks AMD has different laws of physics that apply to their chips, eh? Your Slick reversals remind us all of somebody we see on TV a lot - a guy with a lot of lawyers on his payroll. Paul {==========================================} o: Paul Engel (46202 ) From: Scumbria Friday, Jan 15 1999 1:15PM ET Reply #46206 of 47550 Paul, excuses Intel's failure to develop an x86 core targeted for high MHz will cost them dearly. AMD showed the foresight to develop K7. Does a 1GHz x86 CPU early next year sound like an excuse to you? Scumbria {=======================================}